wilber’s aqal map and beyond€¦ · i am very grateful to my nephew frank sattler who painted...

Wilber’s AQAL Map and Beyond

Rolf Sattler

Wilber’s AQAL Map and Beyond

Rolf Sattler 401—66 Greenview Drive

Kingston, Ontario, Canada K7M 7C5 E-mail: [email protected]

Permission to Use

Permission is granted to quote from this book provided proper attribution is given to Rolf Sattler. 2008. Wilber’s AQAL Map and Beyond.

http://www.beyondWilber.ca

ISBN 978-0-9809417-0-8

Printed in Canada

Copyright 2008

Rolf Sattler, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

- i -

Contents PROLOGUE

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

INTRODUCTION:

Wilber’s AQAL Map Limitations of Wilber’s AQAL Map Mandala Maps

Part 1: BEYOND THE LIMITATIONS OF WILBER’S AQAL MAP

Chapter 1: HIERARCHY AND BEYOND: Holons and Holarchy (Hierarchy)—Beyond Hierarchy—Holism—Holism, Holiness, and Health—Conclusions

Chapter 2: EITHER/OR LOGIC AND BEYOND: Either/Or Logic—Both/And Logic—Fuzzy Logic and Fuzziness—Logic and Wilber’s AQAL Map—Hierarchy as a Fuzzy Set—Yin-Yang—Dialectics—Network Thinking—Either/Or in Wilber’s Map and Philosophy—Ways of Thinking Healing the Human Condition and the World—Conclusions

Chapter 3: EVOLUTION AND BEYOND: Evolution—Beyond Evolution—Involution in Time—Involution and Evolution in the Eternal Present—Fulfillment and Peace—Conclusions

Part 2: A DYNAMIC MANDALA

Chapter 4: THE DYNAMIC MANDALA: What is a Mandala?—The Structure of the Dynamic Mandala—Different Interpretations of the Dynamic Mandala—The Dynamic Mandala in Relation to Wilber’s Map—A Mandala of Mandalas—A Transformative Mandala—Contemplation of the Mandala—The Mandala as an Aid to Liberation—Mandala: The Architecture of Enlightenment—The Fluid Mandala and the Fluid Kosmos—Healing through the Mandala—Alleviating Suffering through the Mandala—Transforming and Healing Society through the Mandala—Conclusions

Chapter 5: TRANSFORMATIONS OF THE DYNAMIC MANDALA: Changing the Number of Circles—Changing the Number of Concept Pairs—Changing the Structure of the Mandala—Organic/Artistic Mandala Transformations—Stillness in the Center of the Cyclone—Conclusions

- ii -

Chapter 6: COMPLEMENTARITY: An Analogy—The Complementarity of Maps—Wilber’s Map and the Mandala—Antagonism and Complementarity—Complementarity of Concept Pairs—Hierarchy and Continuum—Hierarchy and Network—Evolution and Involution—Art and Science—Yin and Yang—Holonic Kosmos and Holistic Kosmos—McFarlane’s Mathematical Mandala and the Mandala of this Book—Other Complementary Maps - Complementarity Leading to more Tolerance and Peace—Suchness – Conclusions

Chapter 7: THE KOSMIC DANCE: Moving and Dancing with the Dynamic Mandala—The Dance of Shiva—The Kosmic Play—The Kosmic Joke—Conclusions

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS: GENERAL SUMMARY—BEYOND WILBER’S AQAL MAP—REMOVING LIMITATIONS IN WILBER’S AQAL MAP—A MESSAGE FOR EDUCATORS AND EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

EPILOGUE

REFERENCES

- iii -

Prologue

I begin this book with an exposition of Wilber’s innovative AQAL Map of the Kosmos (Like Wilber, I write Kosmos with a capital K to indicate that it refers not only to the physical cosmos but to all domains of existence from matter to spirit). It seems to me that Wilber’s map is an excellent point of departure for a further exploration of new ways of thinking because it is very comprehensive and easily accessible, has been worked out in considerable detail, and has the potential to fundamentally affect in a very beneficial way all aspects of our lives and society (see, for example, his Integral Operating System [2005d] and The Life Practice Starter Kit by his Integral Institute [2006]). His map has, however, limitations. Many of these limitations have been pointed out by Frank Visser, Jeff Meyerhoff, M. Alan Kazlev, Hugh & Amalia Kaye Martin and others in Frank Visser’s comprehensive website http://www.integralworld.net and elsewhere. In the first part of this book I focus on some of the most fundamental limitations and show how they can be overcome by new and old, even ancient, ways of thinking that have been ignored or neglected in Wilber’s map.

In the second part of this book I present a new map in the form of a dynamic mandala that can be interpreted and transformed in many ways. Since each transformation is another mandala, this map is a mandala of mandalas, or a map of maps, or a set of maps, each of which can be interpreted in different ways. Since one of these transformations and interpretations is Wilber’s map, his map is a special case of the more inclusive map of maps that integrates all the ways of thinking I present in the first part of this book.

Why are maps important? The function of a map is to guide us. If a territory is not represented on a map, it fails to guide us to this territory. For example, if Kingston in Ontario is not represented on a map, this map cannot help us to find Kingston. Similarly, if certain ways of thinking and being are not represented on a map, this map cannot lead us towards these ways. For example, if a map is based solely on either/or thinking, it cannot help us to discover Yin-Yang, continuum, and network thinking, and thus vast areas of thinking are excluded. Or if transpersonal states and stages are excluded in a map, this map fails to draw our attention to these important realms of being.

Now, since each single map is limited one way or another, a multitude of maps obviously is much more encompassing than any single map. One of the novelties this book offers is such a multitude of maps that are integrated in a dynamic map of maps or mandala of mandalas.

- iv -

Conceiving and accepting a multitude of maps is important in many ways. It develops and cultivates in us a flexibility of thinking and being that brings us in tune with the fluidity of the Kosmos. It teaches us the art of letting go, that is, not clinging to only one view and experience, while resisting or rejecting other complementary views and experiences that can be enormously enriching and thus can create deeper understanding, tolerance, and peace in our world that is dangerously torn apart by antagonistic modes of thinking and being. In general, contemplation of the plurality of maps (that are mandalas) can lead to profound insights into ourselves, the world, the Kosmos, reality. And thus it can contribute to liberation from many misconceptions, misunderstandings, suffering, sickness, and can lead to a more profound happiness (see, e.g., H.H. The Dalai Lama and Cutler 1998).

Both Wilber’s AQAL map and the mandala of this book acknowledge transpersonal states and stages in which the thinking mind has been transcended to reveal no-mind or Big Mind (that is beyond the thinking mind). At times we reach such states spontaneously, but more often through prolonged and regular contemplation and meditation. Contemplation of the mandala can lead us to its center, which represents the unnamable, the mystery of our personal existence and the Kosmos, or emptiness in the Buddhist sense (see, e.g., Tenzin Gyatso, The Fourteenth Dalai Lama 2005). Meditation can liberate us from the limitations of the fragmenting thinking mind—meditation in its various forms ranging from sitting to standing meditation, and from walking to dancing to laughing meditation.

In Western culture that has been so deeply entrenched in the mental, rational structure of consciousness, any attempt to go beyond the thinking mind is often met with suspicion, if not total condemnation. However, sages and seers, and even some philosophers and scientists, have always been aware of realms beyond the thinking mind. For example, Albert Einstein, the great physicist and philosopher, wrote: “The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science... To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religiousness” (Einstein, quoted by Ravindra 2000).

- v -

Acknowledgements

First of all, I want to thank Ken Wilber because his writings and especially his AQAL map of the Kosmos have inspired me to write this book.

For valuable comments on the manuscript I am very grateful to Ms. Beth Clark, Ms. Jane Forrington-Burke, Ms. Lindsay Brie Mathers, Dr. Thomas J. McFarlane, and Dr. Rolf Rutishauser.

I am very grateful to my nephew Frank Sattler who painted the artistic mandalas Figures 5–7 and 8. And I am also very grateful to Ms. Alice Ching-Chew, Owner/Operator of Groundhog Computing Services, for proofreading and designing this book.

Rolf Sattler Wilber’s AQAL Map and Beyond

- 1 -

Introduction

Wilber’s AQAL Map

Ken Wilber is “the world’s most widely published philosopher,” whose “books have been translated into 30 languages” (Meyerhoff 2005). Since he offers a synthesis of science, philosophy, and spirituality, he has been called a spiritual and integral philosopher. His AQAL map of the Kosmos (to which I also refer simply as his map or his AQAL map) is among the most encompassing maps ever devised in the course of human history. It is highly significant and important because it is relevant to all aspects of life and can help to improve the post/modern predicament.

Physicists have also developed increasingly comprehensive maps and theories. Nowadays they seem to be at the verge of unifying the four forces known in physics; in this connection some of them have referred to a Theory of Everything. We must, however, keep in mind that even if they succeed in developing such a theory, it is only a scientific theory of physics. Being objective, it leaves out the subjective realm, personal and transpersonal human experience. Furthermore, it leaves out art and morals as well as biology, psychology, and the social sciences.

Some thinkers have integrated more than matter into their theories. For example, Laszlo’s (2004) “integral theory of everything” comprises matter, life, and consciousness; but it is still primarily a scientific vision, although he supplemented it with a poetic rendition that appeals to our hearts and guts.

Wilber’s map comprises the self, culture, and nature; the I, you/we, and it; art, morals, and science; interior and exterior, individual and collective views of reality; objectivity and subjectivity, and with regard to the latter, personal and transpersonal experiences, including religious and mystical experience, Eastern and Western. This synthesis of all of these realms is applied to many fields of society and human endeavor such as science, including medicine and environmentalism, business, law, politics, education, philosophy, religion, art, spirituality, psychoanalysis, and personal existence. Because of this extraordinary comprehensiveness, Wilber himself referred to his map as a “Theory of Everything” (Wilber 2001). This theory obviously is far beyond the Theory of Everything scientists are talking about. Maybe it would be more appropriate to refer to it as an integral vision of everything as Wilber (2007) himself has done.

But is it indeed an integral theory or vision of everything? Although Wilber (2006: 2) considers his map “the most complete and accurate map we have at this time,” he


- 2 -

emphasizes that a map is always simplified to some extent—it is impossible to accommodate everything in a single map. Therefore, “everything” has a special meaning in Wilber’s books such as A Brief History of Everything (Wilber 1996, 2000) and A Theory of Everything (Wilber 2001). Clearly, “everything” can only mean major aspects or realms of reality (Wilber 2000a: 197; 2003,Tape 1). A synthesis of these major aspects or realms is indeed an enormous achievement and deserves to be called an integral vision. However, as Meyerhoff (2005-7) and others have pointed out, Wilber often exaggerates the level of agreement in the scientific community regarding the claims he makes, selects only some sources of information that support his views, disregards other conflicting sources, and sometimes misrepresents sources. This limits the scope of his integration considerably.

Now let us look at Wilber’s AQAL map of the Kosmos. It originated from the Great Chain of Being, which by many, though not everybody, is considered the core of the world’s wisdom traditions. Over the years Wilber has become increasingly critical of the Great Chain but retained its hierarchical structure (see, e.g., Wilber 2007: 213-229). Instead of the Great Chain, he prefers to refer to the Great Nest of Being because this indicates more clearly that it is a hierarchy in the sense of a holarchy (see Chapter 1). In its simplest form this hierarchy has only two or three levels, namely, matter and spirit, or matter, mind and spirit; but up to over twenty levels may be differentiated. Traditionally, often five levels are distinguished: matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit (see Fig. 1–2 in Chapter 1). Fig. 1–1 represents four levels: matter, body, mind, and spirit. Regardless of how many levels are distinguished, each successive level includes and transcends its predecessor(s). Thus, in the simple hierarchy of Figure I–1, body includes and transcends matter, mind includes and transcends body and matter, and spirit includes and transcends mind, body, and matter as the concentric circles graphically indicate it. Each circle can be compared to a nest and thus the most inclusive circle, which is spirit, is the Great Nest of Being that includes all other levels.


- 3 -

matter

body

mind

spirit

Figure I–1. A simple representation of the Great Nest of Being (for a more complete representation that also includes the level of the soul see Fig. 1–2).

Instead of levels, Wilber often refers to stages or waves. Since the publication of the first edition of Sex, Ecology, Spirituality (1995), Wilber distinguishes four aspects of the waves, stages, or levels: an interior and exterior aspect, both of which have an individual and collective aspect. With regard to the circular map of Figure I–1, this means that it has to be divided into the following four quadrants: the upper left interior-individual quadrant, the lower left interior-collective quadrant, the upper right exterior-individual quadrant, and the lower right exterior-collective quadrant (see, for example, The AQAL Holon in http://www.kheper.net/Wilber/Wilber_IV.html, or recent books by Wilber such as Integral Spirituality (Wilber 2006: 20) or The Integral Vision (2007: 70) or Fig. 5–5 (in Chapter 5 of this book). In excerpts from the forthcoming second volume of his Kosmos trilogy (2005a,b) and in Integral Spirituality (2006), Wilber pointed out that in each quadrant an inside and outside view has to be distinguished. “The outside view is how is looks, the inside view is how it feels” (Wilber 2006: 154). Altogether the outside and inside views of the four quadrants constitute eight views disclosing eight zones. Since each view and zone has its own distinctive methodology, this leads to an “Integral Methodological Pluralism” (Wilber 2006). Each methodology, with the insights it provides, presents a different perspective of reality. According to Wilber’s (2006) “Integral Post-Metaphysics,” there are no perceptions of a given manifest reality because there is no given manifest reality. Manifest reality is a construction based on evidence: it is “the realm of perspectives, not things nor events nor structures nor processes nor systems nor vasanas nor archetypes nor dharmas, because all of those are perspectives before they are anything else, and cannot be adopted or even stated without first assuming a perspective” (Wilber 2006: 42).


- 4 -

In contrast to the traditional Great Chain or Nest of Being, in the four quadrant model matter is no longer at the basis of all levels, but instead is the exterior (that is, the right quadrants) of all levels (Wilber 2005b, Figure 4). This means that each level of consciousness in the interior left quadrants has a corresponding level of matter in the right quadrants (Wilber 2005c). Since modern science has shown that matter is related to and can be transformed into energy, matter (in the right quadrants) has to be understood as matter/energy. Furthermore, matter spans the whole range from gross to subtle to very subtle. The gross level, that we are normally accustomed to, is the exterior view of the body; the subtle level is the exterior view of the mind; and the causal level, which represents the subtlest energy, is the exterior view of spirit. There are further correspondences between the upper individual quadrants and the lower collective quadrants (see The AQAL Holon in http://www.kheper.net/Wilber/Wilber_IV.html).

Since both right quadrants represent science (that deals objectively with the exterior view), they can be combined. Then only three kosmic dimensions are distinguished, which Wilber calls “The Big Three”: the interior of the individual, the self; the interior of the collective, culture; and the exterior of the individual and collective, nature; or, from another perspective, art, morals, and science; or the Beautiful, the Good, and the True.

Within the four quadrants or the Big Three, Wilber distinguishes a varying number of levels, stages, or waves. He notes that the number of levels is somewhat arbitrary, referring to the analogy of a building where we can distinguish as many levels as there are floors or steps in the stairs that connect the floors. In the simplest version of his map only three levels are indicated: body, mind, spirit in the upper left quadrant and corresponding levels in the other quadrants. In the most complete version of his map seventeen levels are implied of which thirteen are listed. The central point from which everything radiates represents the Big Bang and the numbered stages indicate evolutionary and developmental levels in time. Without going into the detail of all the stages, let me only highlight some of the stages that I shall refer to in the following chapters. In the upper left quadrant evolution led from atoms to molecules to (prokaryotic and eukaryotic) cells to neuronal organism with increasingly complex brains. The lower right quadrant represents corresponding stages of the collective in which the individuals of the upper right quadrant evolved. Thus, atoms evolved in galaxies, molecules on planets, and so on. The upper left quadrant represents the individual interior aspect of evolution, that is consciousness. It ranges from prehension, the proto-consciousness of atoms and molecules, to irritability of prokaryotic cells such as bacteria, to sensation, perception, impulse, and emotion in organisms with increasingly evolved brains. Finally,


- 5 -

with the evolution of the human species, consciousness proceeds to the use of symbols, concepts, rules, formal reasoning, vision-logic (see below), and four transpersonal stages that are not explicitly indicated in the usual representation of the most complete version of his map (see, e.g., The AQAL Holon in http://www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Wilber_IV.html, or Integral Spirituality [Wilber 2006: 250]). The highest of these transpersonal stages is the Nondual. Although Wilber refers to it often as a stage, he also points out that it “is not a stage set apart from other stages, but is rather the Suchness or Thatness or empty Ground that is equally present in and as all stages and all phenomena. The metaphor I have repeatedly used is that Suchness is not the highest rung in a ladder but the wood out of which the whole ladder is made (Wilber 2001b: 336). The lower left quadrant represents the environmental or, in humans, the cultural context for the evolution of individual consciousness. For example, the archaic stage is the context for the evolution of the use of symbols, the magic stage for concepts, the mythic stage for rules, the rational stage for formal reasoning, and the centauric stage for vision-logic.

Considering all four quadrants at once, we can see, for example, that the formal (scientific) mind (stage 12) functions in a rational culture in an industrial nation/state, and has a still insufficiently known brain structure-function called SF2. The reader can look for other correspondences across the four quadrants of in the most elaborate version of his map. I do not have to go into all that detail since the focus of this book is on the basic structure of Wilber’s map and not the detail of the stages.

Wilber (2001) also produced a version of his map that is specifically focused on human evolution, which means that the stages below the archaic consciousness are omitted and an additional pluralistic stage is distinguished between the stages of formal reasoning and vision-logic. Since individual development repeats to some extent the broad outlines of human evolution, the stages in this map are both evolutionary and developmental stages of an individual human being. (Hugh & Amalia Kaye Martin’s ADAPT model [or map] complements and transcends this version of Wilber’s AQAL map [see Martin, H. & A.K. 2007]).

For the purpose of this book, a version of levels of consciousness that is intermediate between the most elaborate and the simplest version of his map and that includes the transpersonal stages is useful in many instances. In this version, in which he also referred mainly to human evolution and development, he distinguished the following 10 levels or stages of consciousness (Wilber 2000 b: 108-109): 1. the body or body sensations; 2. emotion; 3. the magical mind; 4. the mythic mind; 5. the rational mind, which is characteristic of the modern scientific mind; 6. vision-logic, which is


- 6 -

integral, that is, it allows for “universal pluralism and unity-in-diversity” (Wilber 2000c: 109); and then the four transpersonal stages: 7. the psychic, which is the home of nature mysticism; 8. the subtle, characteristic of deity mysticism; 9. the causal or formless representing formless mysticism; and 10. the nondual, which is nondual mysticism, and, as pointed out above, should not be considered a stage, but the all encompassing Ground. In his recent book on Integral Spirituality (2006), Wilber uses the names of the transpersonal levels and the Nondual for states (see below), not stages or levels. In this book I shall follow Wilber’s original usage, that is, I shall use these names for stages, unless otherwise noted. However, I shall be careful not to confuse stages and states. When I refer to stages, I mean structure-stages, unless otherwise noted. Structure-stages are enduring structures, where higher structures incorporate the lower structures. In contrast, temporary transitional stages “come into existence but subsequently are phased out or replaced” (Wilber in Rothberg and Kelly, 1998: 307). Examples of the latter are moral stages such as preconventional, conventional, and postconventional, where one stage replaces the next one, or worldviews such as archaic, magical, mythic, mental, and so on.

Another important component in Wilber’s AQAL map is lines or streams that unfold through the stages in the quadrants. With regard to human development in the upper left quadrant, there are over a dozen lines including the following: the cognitive line, the moral line, the emotional or affective line, the interpersonal line, the needs line, the self-identity line of ego development, the aesthetic line, the psycho-sexual line, the values line, and the spiritual line in which spirit is “viewed not just as Ground, and not just as the highest stage, but as its own line of unfolding” (Wilber 2006: 24). A person can be at a high level in one line and at a low level in another line. “Overall development, in other words, can be quite uneven” (Wilber 2001: 44). For example, a person can be a mathematical genius and morally or spiritually very low. Or “some individuals—including spiritual teachers—may be highly evolved in certain capacities (such as meditative awareness or cognitive brilliance), and yet demonstrate poor (or even pathological) development in other streams, such as the psychosexual or interpersonal” (Wilber 2001: 45).

Finally, Wilber distinguishes states and types at the various levels of his map. There are deep sleep, dream, and waking states. In addition, “there are all sorts of different states of consciousness, including meditative states (induced by Yoga, contemplation, meditation, and so on); altered states (such as drug-induced); and a variety of peak experiences, many of which can be triggered by intense experiences like making love,


- 7 -

walking in nature, or listening to exquisite music” (Wilber 2005d: 5). Such states can be reached at virtually any stage, but individuals cannot remain in these states because states are temporary, whereas stages are permanent according to Wilber.

Types may run through all the levels, except the formless, which is unqualifiable. Examples of types are masculine and feminine, personality types such as extrovert and introvert, or the nine types of the enneagram.

In conclusion, Wilber’s map is hierarchical, evolutionary/developmental, and progressive. Compared to the Great Nest of Being, from which it originated, it comprises more levels, is subdivided into the four quadrants or the Big Three, and includes further refinements such as lines, states, and types. It can accommodate an extraordinary wealth of information. As I pointed out already, it can be applied to all areas and aspects of society and it is the basis for an Integral Life Practice that is the “conscious exercise of body, mind, and spirit in self, culture, and nature” (Wilber 2005d: 48). This practice comprises dozens of modules. The four core modules are: 1. the cognitive module which is the AQAL map that trains the mind to take perspectives, especially the perspectives of the eight zones; 2. the spiritual or meditative module that emphasizes meditative states training, which in turn leads to higher stages; 3. the shadow work module that helps to release the repressed unconscious; and 4. the 3-body workout module that exercises the gross, subtle and very subtle (causal) body.

Limitations of Wilber’s AQAL Map

Despite its enormous comprehensiveness, Wilber’s map has some limitations. The first part of this book (Chapters 1-3) deals with some of the most fundamental of these limitations and shows how they can be overcome.

Chapter 1 demonstrates the limitations of hierarchical (holarchical) thinking. It shows that hierarchies (holarchies) represent only one limited aspect of reality. Therefore, it is desirable to complement them by nonhierarchical modes of representation that are based on other ways of thinking. The significance of nonhierarchical modes of thinking for our health and our relation to the sacred is pointed out.

Chapter 2 shows that hierarchical (holarchical) thinking entails either/or logic: something belongs either to one level of the hierarchy or to another level; or something belongs to this category or to another category, is either black or white. It is obvious, however, that in the real world we find all shades ranging from black to white; and even black may contain traces of white and vice versa as it is so aptly illustrated in the Yin-


- 8 -

Yang symbol. For this reason, Chapter 2 focuses on alternatives to either/or logic such as both/and logic, fuzzy logic, Yin-Yang and network thinking. The fundamental consequences of these other ways of thinking for the betterment of the human condition and the world are pointed out.

Chapter 3 deals with the evolutionary limitation of Wilber’s map. Evolution is, of course, a major aspect of reality. However, it is only one side of the coin, so to speak. The other side is involution. While evolution in Wilber’s map leads from the Many to the One (the One that becomes apparent at transpersonal levels and that mystics have referred to), involution leads from the One to the Many. Both movements occur in time. However, they may also happen beyond time in the eternal present. Since Wilber’s map represents explicitly only evolution in time, a more comprehensive map will have to include also involution in time and both evolution and involution beyond time in the eternal present. These inclusions point to the important territory of peace and fulfillment.

In general it is very important to keep in mind that the limitations of Wilber’s map are not necessarily limitations of his thinking and experience. For example involution, although not indicated in his map, is well known to Wilber.

Mandala Maps

Whereas the first part of this book deals with fundamental limitations of Wilber’s map and shows how they can be overcome, the second part presents an alternative map that does not suffer from these limitations. This alternative map is a dynamic mandala, or, more precisely, a self-referential dynamic mandala. Self-referential means that the mandala does not only refer to the Kosmos, but also to itself. Therefore, the dynamic concept of the mandala does not only refer to the dynamic of the Kosmos, but also to the mandala itself, which means that the mandala is also dynamic. In other words, transformation is built into the mandala: the mandala entails countless transformations of itself, each of which is a different mandala or map of the Kosmos. Thus, the mandala actually is a mandala of mandalas, a plurality of maps. It turns out that Wilber’s map is one of the transformations that the mandala can undergo. This means that Wilber’s map is a special case of the mandala. The mandala, however, is not a special case of Wilber’s map since it cannot be generated from Wilber’s map. Therefore, the mandala is more comprehensive than Wilber’s map.

Chapter 4 presents the mandala in a very simple version and demonstrates that:


- 9 -

1. it can be interpreted in a hierarchical (holarchical) way and also in nonhierarchical ways;

2. it can be interpreted in terms of either/or logic or in terms of other types of logic that transcend the constraints of either/or logic;

3. it can be interpreted in terms of evolution and involution;

4. it can be interpreted beyond time in the eternal present.

This chapter also shows how through its contemplation the mandala can provide insights, how it can alleviate suffering, and how it can be an aid to liberation and healing.

Chapter 5 presents several transformations of the mandala, one of which is a simple version of the Wilber map. The version of Figure I–3 also could be generated.

Chapter 6 emphasizes that all of the transformations of the mandala, including the Wilber map, complement each other. In general, the importance of complementarity is underlined and some of its many consequences—ranging from greater comprehensiveness to world peace and tolerance—are pointed out.

Chapter 7 emphasizes how the transformation of the mandala involves the transformer who has to move from one standpoint to another as he or she transforms the mandala and thus can see different perspectives of reality. When this movement is spontaneous and free, it becomes a dance. Since the dance involves mandalas that represent the fluid Kosmos, the dance is a kosmic dance. In its spontaneity and playfulness it can also elicit a song and laughter that can be transformative, healing, and liberating.


- 10 -

Chapter 1: Hierarchy and Beyond

For most people the world consists of a multitude of things, objects, or entities, such as rocks, animals, and humans. All of these are then ordered in terms of higher and lower: animals are higher than rocks, humans are higher than animals, and those who believe in angels would say that angels are higher than humans. This kind of thinking and perception of reality is hierarchical because in a hierarchy there are entities at increasingly higher levels. In this chapter I demonstrate that in addition to hierarchical thinking and perception, there are still other ways of viewing and experiencing the Kosmos including ourselves, and that these other ways are fundamentally important for the beneficial transformation of ourselves and society.

Holons and Holarchy (Hierarchy)

Hierarchy is fundamental to Wilber’s thinking and his AQAL map of the Kosmos. He emphasizes that by hierarchy he does not mean a dominator hierarchy in which an upper level entity such as the head of an organization dominates lower level entities such as his staff. By hierarchy he means a natural or normal hierarchy, which is a fundamental ordering principle. To distinguish this ordering principle from a dominator hierarchy, he prefers to call it holarchy, a term used by Arthur Koestler (see Wilber 2000a: 29). However, he also uses the terms holarchy and hierarchy interchangeably, since a holarchy is a natural or normal hierarchy. When I refer to hierarchy, I always understand it in the sense of holarchy, unless I specify otherwise.

What is a holarchy or hierarchy? A holarchy or hierarchy is a system of holons at different levels. In this system lower level holons compose a higher level holon, and a higher level holon comprises lower level holons. Any holon is a part with regard to the higher level holon it composes, and at the same time a whole with regard to the lower level holon(s) it comprises. Therefore, a holon is a part/whole. For example, an organ is a part of an organism, but a whole with regard to the cells of which it is comprised. Or a word is a part of a sentence, but a whole with regard to the letters that compose it.

According to Wilber, manifest reality is made of holons, part/wholes, at different levels that form a holarchy or hierarchy. In simple terms this means that reality is like Chinese boxes in which bigger boxes comprise smaller boxes and smaller boxes are contained in bigger boxes. Or, instead of referring to boxes, one could compare holons to circles or spheres so that the whole hierarchy consists of concentric circles or spheres, bigger ones enclosing smaller ones and smaller ones being enclosed by


- 11 -

bigger ones (see Figure I–1). Accordingly, “the Kosmos is a series of nests within nests within nests indefinitely” (Wilber 2001: 40).

Although this view of reality is rather limiting as I shall point out below, it does give us various insights (see Wilber 2000a). For example, each higher level holon includes and transcends its lower level holons. Because of the transcendence, the higher level holon has emergent properties that are not found in its lower level holons. Thus, a bird can fly, but its cells cannot. This shows that reductionism is not generally tenable. According to reductionism, which nowadays is very popular in biology, medicine and other fields, it is often naively assumed that a mere knowledge of molecules such as DNA or cellular function will allow us to understand the whole organism. But such knowledge of lower level holons does not necessarily give us an insight into the emergent properties of the higher level holon. Hence, a knowledge of all genes of an organism will not lead to an understanding of that organism, although it may be helpful.

Wilber (1998: 53) recognizes that Spirit or ultimate reality is not hierarchical. It is not hierarchical because it is not qualifiable in mental terms, that is, it cannot be captured through words and concepts. Hence, if nothing can be said about ultimate reality, it cannot be said that it is hierarchical. However, Wilber (1998: 53) insists that ultimate reality manifests itself as a hierarchy. Below I will show that we can interpret or think about manifest reality in a hierarchical or nonhierarchical way. Maybe one could even say that depending on our mode of thinking we create a hierarchical or nonhierarchical manifestation of the unnamable unmanifest. In any case, our perception of reality is to some extent dependent on our mode of thinking.

Beyond Hierarchy

Now let me demonstrate by means of three examples of hierarchies from simple versions of Wilber’s map how hierarchies and hierarchical thinking can be transcended, or, in other words, how we can see the manifest world (that to most people including Wilber appears hierarchical) in a nonhierarchical way.

Science: Figure 1–1 represents a scientific hierarchical view of the organism. According to this common view that can be found in almost any standard biology text and that is also accepted by Wilber, atoms form molecules which form cells which form organisms.


- 12 -

organism cell molecule atom

Figure 1–1. Hierarchy of entities (holons) of successive levels of organization in an organism

Another way of representing the hierarchy of Figure 1–1 would have been in terms of concentric circles as shown for the hierarchy of Figure 1–2 below (see also Wilber 2007: 31). Additional levels could have been added such as tissues and organs between the cell and organism levels, and two types of cells could have been distinguished (procaryotes and eucaryotes as indicated by Wilber in Figure I -3) Also, an environmental hierarchy, representing the correlates of the fourth quadrant, could have been placed alongside this hierarchy (see Figure I–3 and Wilber 2000a: 87-93). However, for the following discussion it will be sufficient to consider the simple hierarchy of Figure 1–1. It is considered very basic and is usually taken for granted as self-evident. Wilber (2001: 39) wrote: “organisms actually contain cells, which actually contain molecules, which actually contain atoms. You can even see this directly with a microscope. That hierarchy is one of actual embrace.” Can we indeed see this? If we look at sections of plant organs at low magnification, cells do indeed appear to be rather evident. So holons appear to be directly visible and since holons are the basis of the hierarchy, at least the basis seems justified. However, if we study sections of the same plant organs under the electron microscope (or at very high magnification under light microscopes), the situation changes profoundly. Now we can actually see that the discrete cells of the low magnification view are interconnected by many strands, called plasmodesmata. Therefore, a minute traveler of macromolecular size could traverse the whole plant organism through thousands of so-called cells without encountering a barrier. That traveler could only conclude that there is undivided wholeness, not an assemblage of separate cells or holons. However, since the nucleus of the cells is too large to pass through the interconnecting bridges (plasmodesmata), for the nucleus as a structure there is a discontinuity between cells. But this discontinuity does not exist for the molecular products of the nucleus. Hence, it is a matter of perspective whether we see cells as separate entities or not. In any case, we cannot ignore that there is an underlying wholeness. Thus, the concept of the symplast “describes the entire living mass of the plant as a continuous unit, contrary to the idea that cells are separate individuals” (Moore et al., 1995: 69). Therefore, in contrast to cell theory, an organismal theory has been proposed, at least for plants (Kaplan and Hagemann 1991). According


- 13 -

to this theory, the partial walls between so-called cells are seen as providing a form of endoskeleton for the plant, not cellularity as it is commonly understood: cells are no longer the basic units (holons) of plants.

Animal cells differ in several ways from plant cells, but they are also interconnected. These interconnections, called gap junctions, are much finer than the plasmodesmata in plants. Nonetheless, they provide a continuum between the so-called cells and therefore the organismal theory could also be applied to animal cells. But it seems that the vast majority of biologists is not inclined to accept the organismal theory either for plants or animals. They are not willing to give up cell theory, which is considered a cornerstone of biology and the fundamental unit of cell biology, a major branch of modern biology.

However, it is not necessary to give up cell theory in favor of the organismal theory. These two theories can exist side by side as different perspectives of the same reality: one emphasizing the underlying continuity and the other a partial compartmentalization into cells. Thus, the two theories that appear contradictory actually complement each other and together they provide a broader and richer view of reality than each one alone.

How does this relate to hierarchical thinking? If we consider the organismal theory, cells can no longer function as fundamental units (holons) at one level of the hierarchy. As a consequence the hierarchy collapses at that level. What appeared hierarchical is no longer hierarchical. Thus a nonhierarchical view emerges. This does not mean, however, that therefore the hierarchical view at this level is totally wrong. It can still be maintained as another perspective based on the limited validity of cell theory. As cell theory and the organismal theory can coexist as complementary theories, so the hierarchical and the nonhierarchical views can also coexist and complement each other. I would say that the nonhierarchical view is perhaps more encompassing since it is based on the underlying continuity within the organism, but that does not totally invalidate the hierarchical perspective.

The major conclusion we can draw from this insight is that reality is not just nests within nests within nests, as Wilber (2001: 40) put it. Reality is also a continuum. Where almost everybody, including Wilber, thought that we have a clear-cut example of holons and a hierarchy, both of them vanished, at least from one perspective. So it seems that we cannot make universal blanket statements such as that manifest reality is fundamentally hierarchical, but we have to appreciate that different perspectives


- 14 -

illuminate different aspects of reality. This will have major consequences when we devise general maps of reality, as I shall demonstrate in the second part of this book.

Now one could argue that the breakdown of exclusive hierarchical thinking at one level such as the cellular level does not automatically apply to all other levels of the hierarchy of Figure 1–1. This is, of course, correct. But the hierarchy can also be collapsed at other levels. Molecules such as water molecules as well as other molecules may at least under certain circumstances unite into a larger continuum that transcends individual molecules, which then cease to be holons.

At the atomic and subatomic levels, David Bohm distinguished two kinds of order: an explicate and an implicate order. In the explicate order there are holons such as subatomic particles, but in the implicate order, which is like a sea of physical energy from which the explicate order arises, there is only “undivided wholeness” (Bohm 1995, 1996). Thus, as at the cellular level, there are two complementary views: reality composed of holons that provide a basis for a holarchy and undivided wholeness, a continuum, unity, that does not fragment reality into holons and thus does not provide a basis for a hierarchical view. (Wilber criticized David Bohm, but Falk (2006) showed that his critique is based on misrepresentation of Bohm’s ideas)

The same conclusion can also be reached at the level of the whole organism because it can also be seen as a nonentity (non-holon). If we think of the human organism, it is evident that it is not separate from the environment. Air with oxygen enters deeply into the lungs and from there into the bloodstream that circulates through the whole body. In addition, there are many other ways in which the human body is continuous with the environment. For example, the human body can be seen as an electromagnetic field that is continuous with the electromagnetic field of the environment and the whole universe. According to Laszlo (2004), the human organism—like everything else—is completely integrated into the A-field, which is the cosmic quantum vacuum, a superdense and superfluid sea of energy and information that integrates all other fields. Thus, the A-field “connects organisms and minds in the biosphere, and particles, stars, and galaxies throughout the cosmos” (Laszlo 2004: 112). Where then is the boundary between organism and environment? There is none in an absolute sense as Wilber (1979) himself has pointed out in his book No Boundary. Consequently, the organism is not a separate entity (holon). Organism and environment form a continuum. In general, if there are no boundaries between holons, holons cease to exist as holons. And if there are no holons, there cannot be a holarchy or hierarchy.


- 15 -

We can now conclude that where Wilber and others could only see a holarchy of holons, we can also see a continuum: a continuum between the so-called holons and a continuum between the levels of the so-called holarchy. The recognition of this continuum is of profound importance because it removes barriers that create separation, isolation, and alienation in many ways. Nonetheless, there is also a limited usefulness for thinking in terms of a holarchy. As pointed out above, it represents one aspect of reality and it is useful and convenient for communication. For practical orientation in this world, we need reference points and hierarchies provide that. The danger is that the habitual use of language referring to entities (holons) and hierarchies may mislead us into believing that holons and hierarchies are the only ordering principle of the manifest world as Wilber and our dominant culture take it for granted.

The spectrum of consciousness: Figure 1–2 shows the spectrum of consciousness according to a common version of the Great Nest of Being with five levels: matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit. Since each level is demarcated by a circle, this presentation indicates well the nested relationship between the levels. Note that according to this hierarchical view, spirit includes and transcends all other levels, that is, matter, body, mind and soul. It is not the opposite of matter as in many dualistic systems. In this respect the hierarchical view is inclusive. It has, however, a negative consequence: since a hierarchy is asymmetrical, spirit completely includes the lower levels, but the lower levels do not completely include spirit. Hence, matter, body, mind and soul are not completely spiritual, not completely sacred. Especially, body and matter are the most inferior holons in the hierarchy. This conclusion has had disastrous consequences in many ways. It has often led to a devaluation of the body from a spiritual and religious perspective, and it has contributed to the view that, since nature is spiritually inferior, it can be exploited—the result: the environmental crisis. This shows that hierarchical thinking is not only an academic matter, but can have profound and disastrous consequences for the planet, society, and the individual.


- 16 -

matter

body

mind

soul

spirit

Spirit

Figure 1–2. “The Great Nest of Being” or “The Great Holarchy” (see also Figure 12–1 in Wilber 2000a: 444).

Wilber is aware of this problem and for that reason he makes a distinction between spirit (with a small s), which is the most inclusive level of the Great Holarchy, and Spirit (with a capital S), which is the nondual ground of all Being. “Spirit is thus both the highest wave (purely transcendental) and the ever-present ground of all the waves (purely immanent), going beyond All, embracing All...The patriarchal religions tend to emphasize the transcendental “otherworldly” aspect of spirit; and the matriarchal, neopagan religions tend to emphasize the fully immanent or “this worldly” aspect of Spirit” (Wilber 2000d: 8). As indicated in Figure 1–2, Wilber places Spirit outside the concentric circles of the Great Nest which means that it is the ground from which the whole hierarchy with all its levels emerges (one could imagine it as being represented by the paper on which all the levels of the hierarchy are present). According to this view, Spirit resides in everything, even a grain of sand—everything is sacred. Unfortunately, Spirit (with a capital S) is not included in Wilber’s map of the Kosmos (Figure I–1), but is included in some of his other figures that are similar to Fig. 1–2.

As the Great Nest of Being, Wilber’s map of the Kosmos is strictly hierarchical; it does not represent the nonhierarchical perspective of manifest reality. What is this nonhierarchical perspective in consciousness in the interior-individual dimension of his map? It is, for example, a simple experience: when I look into your eyes, I do not only see a part of your body; I also look into your mind and soul and we can be spirit. It is an


- 17 -

experience of oneness and wholeness, an undivided wholeness. There is no fragmentation into holons and holarchical levels. We experience a sense of unboundedness that extends beyond the reaches of the corporeal reality visible to the human eye. (As I shall explain below, I refer to this as nonhierarchical holism in terms of undivided wholeness).

Culture: Culture is the third dimension in the Big Three besides science and consciousness of the self. In Wilber’s four quadrant map (Fig. I–1) we find culture in the lower left quadrant that represents the interior-collective dimension of the Kosmos. Figure 1–3 shows a portion of the cultural hierarchy from Figure I–1.

centauric rational mythic magic archaic

Figure 1–3. Part of the cultural hierarchy of the lower left quadrant of the version of Wilber’s map that is shown in Figure I–3. The centauric level of the hierarchy is correlated with the level of vision-logic in the upper left quadrant. This hierarchy could have also been represented in terms of concentric circles as Fig. 1–2 above.

According to this hierarchy (that could also be presented in terms of concentric circles like Fig. 1–2), the uppermost level of the centauric, which is a cultural expression of vision-logic, comprises the rational level, which includes the mythic level, which contains the magic level, which envelops the archaic level. Since a hierarchy is asymmetrical, the reverse is not the case: the archaic level does not include any of the others; the magical level does not comprise the three levels above it; the mythic level does not contain the rational and centauric; and the rational level fails to envelop the centauric. This means that according to this hierarchical view, cultures at the lower levels are deprived of the upper levels. Is this a realistic picture? I think that even at the lower levels there might have been at least traces of the higher levels. Wilber (1998: 93), referring to Habermas, points out that in the earlier foraging tribes “formal operations were available to a significant number of men and women”, and he adds that “it is quite likely that a chieftain would have to take multiple perspectives in order to coordinate them: vision-logic” (Wilber 1998: 93). He also admits that shamans could access at least the psychic transpersonal level and contrasts this to the low level of the


- 18 -

average person. However, Shinzen Young (1997, Session 23) thinks that a significant number of people in tribal cultures were enlightened.

Regardless of what percentage of the tribal population reached transpersonal levels of awareness, the above average and the average modes of consciousness interacted and thus created some sort of continuum between the two. And even for the average people that were relatively untouched by the above average mode of consciousness it is hard to imagine that they were 100% divorced from the higher transpersonal levels of consciousness. Therefore, it makes sense to conclude that even at the archaic and magic stages also higher levels of consciousness were present in the culture.

Wilber does not completely exclude the possibility that levels may overlap. For example, referring to Kohlberg’s stages of moral development (Wilber 2005d, Disc 2, 10), he pointed out that in someone’s morality 50% came from stage 4, 25% from stage 3, and 25% from stage 5. He adds, however, that it is impossible that someone whose morality is at stage 1 may have peak experiences of stage 5. I do not want to be so categorical: I can envisage that even at stage 1, the lowest stage of moral development, there can be at least a germ, if not more, of the higher stages including stage 5 and above. Consequently, there is the possibility that all levels are united and as a result the hierarchy, which requires distinct levels, dissolves (see also the section on Yin-Yang in Chapter 2). This does not mean that therefore the hierarchy is useless. On the contrary, levels can conveniently be used as markers and the hierarchy as a whole sheds important light on cultural evolution. But for a more comprehensive understanding the hierarchical view needs to be complemented by the nonhierarchical view.

In other words, the hierarchical view shows us one aspect of cultural evolution and the nonhierarchical view another. The latter does not entail the fragmentation inherent in hierarchies and holons that is reinforced by the use of language and therefore tends to become habitual. The power of habits should not be underestimated. Habits form deep roots. Profound transformation may be required to uproot them. Even in science revolutionary views often meet enormous resistance.

Holism

“Holism” can have different meanings depending on what one means by a “whole”. A whole can be a summation of things, entities, parts. Such a whole has little or no integration and therefore barely merits to be called a whole; it is more a heap than a whole.


- 19 -

The whole, or, more correctly, the part/whole or holon in hierarchies and Wilber’s AQAL map, is more integral: holons of the lower level in the hierarchy form a holon at a higher level and this higher level holon is not only a summation of the lower level holons, but an integration that leads to emergent properties, which are not present in the lower level holons. For example, when hydrogen and oxygen unite to form water, properties emerge that are not present in hydrogen and oxygen. As everybody knows, water is very different from its constituent parts, that is, the lower level holons hydrogen and oxygen. Thus, as we go up in the hierarchy, emergence occurs at each level, that is, each level includes and transcends the lower levels. For example, the mind has properties that are not found in the body and the soul goes beyond the mind.

Although holism in terms of hierarchy shows integration, this integration is limited for two reasons: 1. Holons as the basic units of a hierarchy are separate entities at any level of the hierarchy: for example, cells are usually perceived as separate entities at the cellular level of the hierarchy; 2. Any one level in the hierarchy is separate or distinct from other levels. Thus, fragmentation occurs in a hierarchy in two ways: through holons and levels (such as the horizontal fragmentation into cells and the vertical fragmentation into the levels of cell and organism). I have already pointed out how the fragmentation into cells occurs: the continuum of the living body of an organism such as a plant is fragmented into cells through boundaries that do not really exist. It is only because of these imposed boundaries that we can distinguish the levels of the cells and the organism. Otherwise the two are one, and the basis for a hierarchy vanishes. To refer to cells as holons, although it sounds holistic, obviously is not very holistic because it disregards the integration of the so-called cells. The same applies to other holons. And the fragmentation of reality into levels also is not very holistic, although the emergence of novel properties at each level points to integration and in this sense is holistic. Thus, holism based on hierarchy is only a very limited holism, only a little holistic. But as Wilber himself noted, “a little bit of wholeness is better than none at all” (Wilber 2001: XII). I agree.

Wilber (2000a,b) pointed out that holons have the capacity of communion, that is, they can be more or less integrated. If the integration is complete, the boundaries between holons are absent, which means that there are no holons and therefore no basis for the construction of a holarchy as I indicated above. An example of this is the implicate order at the atomic and subatomic levels. In the implicate order there is only “undivided wholeness” (Bohm 1996, 1996), not separate particles as in the explicate


- 20 -

order. It is interesting that Wilber actually acknowledges this “coherence, unity and wholeness of the physical plane” (Wilber 1999: 275).

Wilber also pointed out some integration between different levels of hierarchies. For this reason he called the levels also waves to indicate that they “interpenetrate and overlap (like colors in a rainbow) and are not rigid rungs in a ladder” (Wilber 2000a: 215). This sounds as if he recognized a continuum: waves, and especially overlapping waves, are continuous. But if continuity is admitted, then we lose distinct levels and the latter are a necessity for hierarchical thinking. So does this mean that Wilber himself is questioning and moving away from strictly hierarchical thinking? I shall return to this question in Chapter 2 in the section on “Hierarchy as a Fuzzy Set”.

In any case, there is a kind of holism that is still more holistic than the holism in terms of hierarchy (holarchy): it integrates holons at any level to such an extent that they vanish as entities, and it abolishes levels which means that it goes beyond hierarchies, emphasizing instead continuity, oneness, or “undivided wholeness” (to use David Bohm’s expression in a more general sense). In other words, nonhierarchical holism in terms of undivided wholeness does not fragment reality into holons and levels of a holarchy. Whether this nonholarchical holism is workable for all of reality or only some areas such as an organism (as I have shown above) remains to be seen. In any case, the well-documented organismal view that complements cell theory may serve as a model to see ever larger domains of reality in terms of undivided wholeness and to remind us that holarchical thinking, although useful, obscures the undivided wholeness. But even if nonholarchical holism should remain restricted in scope, it provides an important alternative to the hierarchical view, for example, as far as an organism is concerned.

Wilber (2000c: 118) also wrote that he sees the manifest world as “an interwoven network of interpenetrating processes or holons, which is indeed a type of holistic model”. I think it is a holistic model that goes beyond a model that dissects the manifest world into holons and levels. If it is admitted that holons are interpenetrating, then they may cease to exist as separate holons that are required for a hierarchy and we can no longer say that “reality is made of holons” (Wilber 1998: 61). If we see manifest reality as a network of interpenetrating processes, then it is even more obvious that it is a whole, a continuum, a unity, because processes by their very nature are interconnecting, and a network of processes is an undivided whole, not a set of Chinese boxes or nests within nests within nests.


- 21 -

Wilber (1999: 469) also wrote: “A radically separate and isolated and bounded entity does not exist anywhere.” In his early neo-romantic phase (of which he is now very critical), he even wrote a book entitled No Boundary. However, this does not mean that reality is totally homogenous. It shows differentiation and because of this differentiation we can abstract entities or holons. For example, the waves of the ocean are all one with each other and the ocean, but we can nonetheless distinguish them. As long as we keep in mind the oneness, the distinction of waves is acceptable and may be useful. Furthermore, it represents the differentiation of reality. Thus, the waves are the many, and the ocean is the oneness. What complicates the matter is that the many are not given—they are the result of abstraction. And usually there is more than one way of abstracting the many. For example, in our culture, we usually divide the spectrum of the rainbow into red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet. But this is not the only way to abstract colors. There are African tribes that do it differently and the boundaries they draw do not necessarily coincide with boundaries between the colors we distinguish (see, e.g., Sattler 1986: 74). Another example is the abstraction of organs in a flowering plant such as a tulip. In textbooks it is usually stated that flowering plants consist of three kinds of organs: roots, stems, and leaves. This gives the impression that these organs are given in nature and obscures that fact that they are the result of abstraction. In the plant there is no line that separates roots, stems, and leaves from each other. The plant is a continuous whole. We divide it into roots, stems, and leaves by drawing boundaries that do not exist. Nonetheless, these boundaries are not totally arbitrary. To some extent they reflect the differentiation of plants. But distinguishing roots, stems, and leaves is not the only way of indicating the differentiation. There are other abstractions; other ways of dividing the plant that are unknown to most people including most botanists and textbook authors (see, e.g., Cusset 1982). As one says: there are many ways to cut up the cake—which means that there are many ways to cut up the oneness of reality. Usually we have been conditioned to see just one way of abstraction and then we often forget that the entities or holons are abstractions. Thus, we often forget—or never re-membered—that the “I” or self is an abstraction. In reality there is no boundary between the “I” and its environment that stretches to the infinity of the Kosmos. Consequently, “I” and the Kosmos are one. If, however, we want to indicate the differentiation, then there are many ways to draw boundaries such as the intestinal lining (the inner skin), the outer skin, the various layers of the aura, and so on (see, e.g., Brennan 1988). Canny (1981: 2) asked: “Where is the boundary of a dog? Where you pat it? Or the territory it defends against other dogs? Or how far away your neighbors can hear it barking? Or how far off it can follow your scent? To bacteria its boundaries


- 22 -

are mostly internal: the lining of its gut; to viruses they are cell membranes. So do not stand on your dignity about the real existence of any boundary; it is in your mind. Others may see important divisions of quite other kinds.” Consequently, there are many ways to divide the Kosmos into holons, and thus there are many ways to construct holarchies. Each of them reflects an aspect of reality. But none of them reflects the underlying undivided wholeness. And for this reason we also need a holism in the sense of undivided wholeness. However, ultimately, language is a barrier to the most inclusive holism in terms of undivided wholeness because language inevitable involves fragmentation. But even if a holism in terms of undivided wholeness cannot grasp the whole of the Kosmos all at once, even it represents only the organismal view of the organism, it already goes beyond the confines of a holarchical view of the organism. If in addition it embraces the unity of the organism and its environment, the unity of the observer and the observed, it is still more inclusive. And thus it is an important complement to holarchical holism.

Holism, Holiness, and Health

In ecology and environmentalism we refer to the 3 R’s: reduce, reuse, and recycle. Implementing these 3 R’s has become extremely important for the health of our society and the whole planet.

In science/philosophy and spirituality we should draw more attention to the 3 H’s: holism (referring to wholeness), holiness (referring to the sacred), and health. These 3 H’s are deeply interconnected, and according to common dictionaries such as Webster’s, the words ‘whole’, ‘holy’ and ‘healthy’ even have the same etymological root. Thus, a discussion of wholeness and issues concerning holism are directly relevant to our deepest experience of existence and our health.

Being whole in the widest and deepest sense, so that we feel one with the Kosmos, even in its relative manifestation, evokes a feeling of awe and reverence that can be seen as an expression of the holy or sacred. Being one with the Kosmos means being in tune with the Kosmos, flowing naturally with the fluid Kosmos. According to Chinese medicine, health is the harmonious flow of energy, whereas sickness is due to blockage in this flow. Consequently, health like holiness is an expression of the harmonious kosmic oneness in which the microkosm of the individual mirrors the macrokosm so that they are one.


- 23 -

Since holarchical holism integrates holons and levels in the holarchy, it is a first step toward the expression of wholeness. However, since holons and levels are still separate to at least some extent, this kind of holism is still a rather limited holism and therefore can bring forth only partial holiness and limited health. On the other hand, in as much as the nonholarchical holism I discussed above can overcome the fragmentation into holons and levels, it can lead us towards better health and a more profound experience of the sacred. A still more complete experience of the sacred, which might be better called a sacred beingness, happens in the nondual awareness of the Ultimate or One Taste (Wilber 2000c, 2005d) that is beyond relative reality I discussed in this chapter.

Conclusions

Although I did not examine all hierarchies and all levels of hierarchies, I hope that I have demonstrated in general and through specific examples that hierarchical thinking can have shortcomings and limitations. Nonhierarchical thinking can overcome at least some of these shortcomings and limitations, specifically the fragmentation into holons and levels. In this sense nonhierarchical thinking is beyond hierarchies. Now, Wilber might argue that “beyond” entails ranking and that ranking is falling back into hierarchical thinking. But the “beyond hierarchy” does not include hierarchy and therefore is not hierarchical according to Wilber’s definition of hierarchy.

“Beyond”, in the context of this chapter and this book, also means that we are beyond being caught in one way of thinking such as hierarchical thinking, assuming, as Wilber does, that “the only way you get a holism is via a holarchy” (Wilber 2000b: 25). As I pointed out repeatedly—because this is a very important point—I am not against hierarchies. I recognize their value as an ordering principle and a means to hierarchical holism that reveals emergence, an important phenomenon that often is not recognized in modern reductionist science and flatland views. However, hierarchical thinking is not the only way. We can also think in a nonhierarchical way and this kind of thinking reveals another important aspect of manifest reality that cannot be grasped through hierarchical thinking. Therefore, “beyond” means that we embrace different kinds of thinking and do not get caught just in one way. Then hierarchical and nonhierarchical thinking can complement each other and together these two ways of thinking can provide a richer and deeper understanding of manifest realty than one alone. I shall return to the importance of complementarity in Chapter 6

In conclusion, I would not say that “the Kosmos is a series of nests within nests within nests indefinitely” (Wilber 2001a: 40, italics mine). Wilber himself, in terms of his


- 24 -

Integral Post-Metaphysics, may no longer claim that the manifest Kosmos actually is holonic because according to Integral Post-Metaphysics, “in the manifest world, there are no perceptions, only perspectives” (Wilber 2006: 255), which makes the holonic Kosmos also a perspective. Unfortunately, Wilber does not seem to allow any other perspective in this regard. In contrast, in this chapter and the next I tried to show that there are indeed other important perspectives. With regard to this chapter, I would say that from a hierarchical perspective the Kosmos appears as a series of nests within nests within nests; and from a nonhierarchical perspective the Kosmos appears as a continuum, a unity, and other ways that will be examined in the following chapters. Continuum does not necessarily mean that therefore manifest reality is like a homogenized soup. It is differentiated and therefore it is possible to draw boundaries that are not totally arbitrary, but reflect to some extent the differentiation that can be used to construct hierarchies. But continuity and oneness are nonetheless fundamental.

Holism and wholeness are related to health and holiness, the sacred, and therefore different notions of holism may affect our health and our experience of the sacred. In as much as the nonholarchical holism I discussed above can overcome the fragmentation into holons and levels, it can lead us towards better health and a more profound experience of the sacred. A still more complete experience of the sacred (if we can call it an experience), happens in the nondual awareness of the Ultimate or One Taste (Wilber 2000c, 2005d) that is beyond relative reality I discussed in this chapter.


- 25 -

Chapter 2: Either/Or Logic and Beyond

Most people perceive and interpret reality in terms of either/or: someone is either good or bad, friendly or unfriendly, intelligent or stupid, loving or unloving—and the list could be continued indefinitely, not only for qualities of people but also for anything else. Thus, reality is perceived in terms of mutually exclusive opposites. But is reality really like that? Or is this opposition our creation due to our conscious or unconscious use of either/or logic? And what are the consequences of using either/or logic for our relationships, society, the world, and ourselves?

Either/Or Logic

Either/or logic is the most commonly used logic, which has been passed on to us from ancient Greek philosophers, especially Aristotle. According to this kind of logic or way of thinking, A is either B or not B. For example, a flower is either red or not red, a person is either honest or not honest, a statement is either true or not true, a map is either universal or not universal, you either love me or don’t love me, you are either for me or not for me, which means you are either for me or against me. The list of examples could be continued endlessly because our culture and our lives are permeated by this kind of logic. Even the questions we ask are usually formulated in terms of either/or logic: Is it this or that? Such questions condition us to give answers also in terms of either this or that. And thus it is usually taken for granted that it must be either this or that. Few people realize that other kinds of logic may lead to other types of questions and answers. However, sometimes there is an opening into other ways of thinking which may take a very simple form. For example, someone may say that a statement is not completely false, but contains a grain of truth.

Although Wilber is well aware that there are other kinds of logic besides either/or logic and admits these kinds of logic in his map of the Kosmos, in one fundamental sense his map is based on either/or logic: any particular holon belongs either to one level of the hierarchy or to another level and something is either this holon or that holon. Both/and logic, fuzzy logic, and network logic or thinking can help us to go beyond these limitations.


- 26 -

Both/And Logic

One alternative to either/or logic is both/and logic. According to this kind of logic, A is both B and not B. If “not B” is C, then A is both B and C. This kind of logic seems absurd to many people. However, there is much evidence that it is an appropriate logic. As I mentioned above, in the popular culture there is sometimes inkling that something may be both true and false. Quantum physics revolutionized our thinking through the discovery that light may be both a particle and not a particle phenomenon, both a particle and wave phenomenon.

Whereas either/or logic is antagonistic, both/and logic is reconciliatory. If you propose a theory that is opposed to mine, according to both/and logic, I need not refute your theory and possibly fight with you as it so often happens between adherents of contradictory theories; I can embrace your theory and you because your theory complements mine. Having two theories is therefore better than just one; it is enrichment, whereas according to either/or logic, it may be a thread. It is possible, of course, that one of the two opposing theories can explain more phenomena than the other. But this need not mean that therefore the other theory is useless. It may offer something that is lacking in the theory with greater explanatory power (see Chapter 6).

In Chapter 1 I have already pointed out that plants (and animals) may be understood in terms of both cell theory and the organismal theory, which means that they can be seen as consisting of cells and not of cells. As a consequence we can see both a hierarchy at this particular level and not a hierarchy, that is, unity. Thus, both a hierarchical and nonhierarchical view can be accepted. This is contrary to Wilber’s contention that only the hierarchical view makes sense. Since I can embrace both/and logic, I can conclude that both Wilber’s map and my mandala maps that I shall present in the second part of this book, are maps of reality. However, one difference between these two maps is that the mandala maps include the Wilber map, whereas the Wilber map does not comprise the mandala maps (see Chapter 5).

Wilber (2000a) applies both/and logic in many instances. For example, he acknowledges that spirit is both transcendent and immanent. As I mentioned already in Chapter 1, unfortunately the immanent aspect of spirit, which is Spirit (with a capital S) is not explicitly included in his AQAL map. However, he indicated it in other contexts (e.g., Wilber 2001: 69).


- 27 -

Wilber applies both/and logic also to movement in time, which is both evolutionary and involutionary; also, the manifestation of spirit is in time and beyond time (see Chapter 3). As the Heart Sutra states: “Form is emptiness, and emptiness is form”, whereby form can be seen in time and emptiness is beyond time.

All this shows that Wilber has gone far beyond the limits of either/or logic, but with regard to the basic holonic structure of his AQAL map he adheres to hierarchical thinking, that is either/or logic.

Fuzzy Logic and Fuzziness

Besides either/or logic and both/and logic still other types of logic have been developed, especially during the last century. One of them is three-valued logic in which statements may be true, false, or indeterminate. This logic is useful when we deal with situations that may be indeterminate such as in quantum physics. In multi-valued logic there are many values between true and false. Almost two thousand years ago, Jaina logicians in India developed a seven-valued logic. According to this logic, there are three primary truth values: “true”, “false”, and “indefinite”. The other four values are “true and false,” “true and indefinite,” “false and indefinite,” and “true, false, and indefinite.” “Every statement is regarded as having these seven values, considered from different standpoints” (The New Encyclopedia Britannica, Macropedia 21 [1994]: 210).

Finally, instead of having discrete values, in fuzzy logic there is a continuum between the extremes of true and false ranging from 0% true (=false) to 100% true. But it is not only logical truth or falsehood that are fuzzy. Many phenomena are fuzzy so that Kosko (1993) in his book on “Fuzzy Thinking. The New Science of Fuzzy Logic” referred to a “fuzzy world view.” This worldview is indeed revolutionary. Its importance and far-reaching consequences cannot be emphasized enough. It allows us to perceive the world differently: on this view, the world is not just black and white, but has a rich and varied gradation of grays; it is not just discrete colors, but has also a fascinating mingling of colors. Most of all, it is not only categorical, this or that, but a continuum spanning the categories.

In our culture, especially among so-called educated people, it is almost preposterous and irritating, if not ridiculous, to refer in all seriousness to fuzziness. The ideal very often has been and still is to do away with fuzziness as much as possible, that is, to reduce everything to clear-cut, unambiguous categories. However, the real world is not always so clear-cut and unambiguous. Therefore, if we want to better understand the


- 28 -

real world, we have to learn to speak a language that comes as close as possible to the real world. Ultimately, there is, of course, no language that will reveal absolute reality as it is. But with regard to relative reality, we have the choice between different languages based on different kinds of logic. Either/or logic will allow us to understand some simple aspects of reality. For example, if in the continuum from black to white we just want to focus on the extremes, black and white, either/or logic will be sufficient to do that. However, if we want to deal with the whole range from black to white with all the gray tones in between, fuzzy logic will be required. Thus, fuzzy logic will make it possible to greatly increase the scope of our understanding because there is so much fuzziness in the real world.

Our everyday life is permeated by fuzziness. Kosko (1993: 126) illustrated this by the response of an audience. When we ask an audience who is married, a clear-cut answer may be obtained because marriage is an institution regulated by law. However, when we ask who is happy, or honest, or moral, or jealous, or intelligent, or tall, or overweight, many people find it difficult to give a clear-cut answer because any of these issues and many others are fuzzy: one can be more or less intelligent, more or less happy, etc. Where does one draw the line between happy and unhappy or tall and short? Any line is arbitrary. For the extremes, the answer is easy. But between the extremes—and many people are between the extremes—only a more or less arbitrary answer is possible. A very close look may even reveal that the extremes are not totally free of fuzziness because even a happy man may still harbor very small pockets of unhappiness (see below under Yin-Yang). Thus, the recognition of fuzziness may create awareness that we are much “more or less” than we normally think we are according to the labels we carry. Kosko (1993: 127) wrote: “We are all left, right, center, straight, gay, bi, cool, square, plain, for, against, and indifferent.” We may be any of these only to an extremely small degree, or only potentially. But knowing that we are all that—and much more—can help us to connect to others who appear to be very different because they occupy a different place in the continuum.

It is astounding how much resistance against fuzziness we find in our culture. Because we have been deeply conditioned against fuzziness, many people feel more secure and more comfortable if, consciously or subconsciously, they can hide behind clear-cut labels and categories. There are, however, also people who accept the idea of fuzziness and fuzzy logic, but object to the wording only: they just do not like the words ‘fuzziness’ and ‘fuzzy’. Without changing any of the meaning, they could replace ‘fuzziness’ by ‘continuum’ and ‘fuzzy’ by ‘continuous’ and thus refer to ‘continuous logic’


- 29 -

instead of ‘fuzzy logic’. Other alternatives are ‘gray logic’ or ‘cloudy logic’ (Kosko 1993: 292). I prefer the words ‘fuzzy logic’ and ‘fuzziness’ because they are commonly accepted in the literature on logic and have been used by Lofti Zadeh, the inventor of fuzzy set theory (see Kosko, 1993).

Fuzzy set theory deals with sets. How are sets defined? In traditional either/or logic the definition of a set applies to all members of the set. Therefore, one either is a member of a set or one is not, one is a man or one is not, one is a woman or one is not. According to fuzzy logic, which is also called fuzzy set theory, this changes radically: according to fuzzy set theory, membership in a set ranges from 0% to 100%. Thus one can be a partial member of a set; for example, a 50% member of the set of men and at the same time a 50% member of the set of women. We know that such partial members do indeed exist. There are people who are physically intermediate between a typical man and woman. These people often have to undergo painful operations to conform to our categories of either/or logic. They are violently forced into our man-made categories. In contrast, fuzzy set theory allows for the whole range of intermediates.

Fuzzy set theory does not only deal with relatively rare cases of intermediates such as the physical intermediates between men and women. More importantly, it reveals and emphasizes fuzziness where we did not expect it or do not notice it sufficiently. As a result, it changes our view of the world. Kosko (1993) describes many examples of fuzzy sets in science, religion, ethics, law, politics, and other aspects of life. I consider Kosko’s book one of the most important books of the 20th century because of its fundamental relevance to all aspects of life and its potential to beneficially transform our individual lives, society, and the whole world.

Logic and Wilber’s AQAL Map

Fuzzy logic is relevant to most, if not all, aspects of Wilber’s map, that is, to the three or four major dimensions (The Big Three or four quadrants), levels, lines, states, and types. Here I want to focus on levels, which means hierarchy. How do fuzzy logic and fuzziness affect hierarchies? I think they dissolve them. Let me explain.

To obtain and retain a hierarchy, the following two conditions must be fulfilled:

1. The levels that function as levels of the hierarchy must be distinct and mutually exclusive (Figure 2–1a). Thus, for example, according to cell theory, in multicellular organisms the levels of the cell and the whole organism are distinct and mutually exclusive: the organism is not a cell and vice versa.


- 30 -

2. The upper level holon must completely include the lower level holons. Such complete inclusion requires that the set of lower level holons contains all members all or none (Figure 2–2a). In a multicellular organism, according to cell theory, this means that the organism contains only cells as lower level holons on the cellular level.

organism

cell

a

organism

cell

overlapping intermediate

b

Figure 2–1. a. Two distinct and mutually exclusive levels of a hierarchy representing the levels of organism and cell. b. Overlapping levels that violate the condition of distinctness and mutual exclusivity.


- 31 -

a

b Figure 2–2. a. All holons such as cells (represented by the small boxes) contained within the set of cells, that is, the set of holons; b. Two of the holons not contained within the whole set, hence the set of cells is a fuzzy set.

Now let us examine whether these two conditions are always fulfilled at the two levels of cell and organism. It appears that they are indeed fulfilled in many cases, provided we accept cell theory. But there are also cases where the two conditions are not fulfilled even if we accept cell theory. For example, in some algae such as Derbesia the whole organism contains many nuclei (Figure 2–3a); these nuclei are not surrounded by incomplete cell walls as it is usually the case in algae and plants. Is this organism the equivalent of a multicellular alga that lacks cellular partitioning, or is it equivalent to only one huge cell that has become multinuclear? It is neither one, nor the other. This organism is intermediate between unicellular and multicellular algae because it shares properties of both. With the unicellular algae it shares the lack of internal partitioning by incomplete cell walls, whereas with the multicellular algae it shares the possession of many nuclei. This means that it is at an intermediate level between a single cell and a multicellular organism: it overlaps the two levels (Figure 3–1b) and as a result the two levels are no longer distinct and mutually exclusive, that is, the first condition for a hierarchy is no longer fulfilled.


- 32 -

a b c

Figure 2–3. Diagrams of the algae Derbesia (a), Cladophora (b), and Spongomorpha (c). The little circles represent nuclei. Explanation in text. For more realistic drawings of these algae that also show the branching of the filaments see Moore et al. (1995: 70).

There are other algae whose organization is more or less intermediate between that of Derbesia and the common cellular organization shown in Figure 2–3c. For example, Cladophora has incomplete partitioning by walls as it is typical for the so-called cellular organization, but each unit contains more than one nucleus (a typical cell has only one nucleus). As a result there is “a complete range of intermediates between unicellular, multinucleate and multicellular, uninucleate [algae]” (Kaplan and Hagemann 1991: 698). This continuum spans and unites the levels of the cell and the multicellular organism and thus shows that these two

wilber’s aqal map and beyond€¦ · i am very grateful to my nephew frank sattler who painted...

Documents